LAWS(CAL)-1981-6-11

BHAKTA PROSAD PAUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On June 18, 1981
BHAKTA PROSAD PAUL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rule, in which the exceptions regarding the maintainability have been taken and the particulars whereof are mentioned hereinafter, was obtained on 18th Nov., 1980, against order dated 13th March, 1978, made by the Bhagchas Officer, Monteswar, Burdwan, in Bhagchas Case No. 40 of 1976, as affirmed in M. P. Case No, 154 of 1978 on 10th July 1980. The impugned orders are in Annexures "E" and "H" to the petition of motion.

(2.) It was contended by the petitioner, on a reference to the impugned appellate order, that the same was bad, irregular, void, illegal and unauthorised, as firstly, the same was not a duly reasoned order or a speaking order, secondly the reference to Bhagchas Case No. 46 of 1976 in the order itself, which should have been Bhagchas Case No. 40 of 1976, proved and established non application of mind and thirdly, even though such point was not taken in explicit language, both the determinations as impeached, were perverse, as the facts and evidence as lead or tendered, were not duly considered. It has been stated that the lands in question belonged to one Khudiram Mondal and on his death, his son Sri Sailendra Nath Mondal, Sm. Bhagabati Mondal, the second wife of the deceased and Sm. Minati Rani Mondal, the daughter, inherited those properties. It has also been stated that Sm. Bhagabati Mondal and Sm. Minati Rani Mondal, settled the lands in question as Bargadar with the petitioner, after such inheritance,

(3.) It was the case of the petitioner that thereafter, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, for whom Mr. B. C. putt was appearing, filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds as mentioned in Section 17 (1) (d) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). This application, as mentioned above, was numbered as Bhagchas Case No. 40 of 1976. Such application, even after contest by the petitioner, was allowed, wherefrom the concerned appeal was taken, which again was dismissed in the manner as indicated above.